Referee explains Krstovic-Saelemaekers VAR controversy

Refereeing chief Dino Tommasi explains why Nikola Krstovic was despatched off in Milan-Lecce, however Alexis Saelemaekers didn’t get a pink card in Frosinone-Bologna.

DAZN have a weekly slot on their Sunday night protection referred to as Open VAR, the place the footage and audio from the Video Assistant Referees is performed, together with an evaluation of whether or not these had been appropriate or incorrect choices.

There was controversy this weekend as a result of two pretty comparable strikes weren’t handled the identical method, as Krstovic noticed pink for catching Milan’s Samuel Chukwueze within the ribs, whereas Saelemaekers was solely booked for a a lot larger boot on Frosinone’s Nadir Zortea.

Some would argue that neither had been pink playing cards, as there was no intention to harm an opponent, however that isn’t within the rulebook.

“That is the large distinction between violent conduct and critical foul play, it doesn’t matter whether it is intentional or not, it’s concerning the hazard you place your opponent in,” explained CAN chief and former referee Tommasi.

“Intention is irrelevant, there’s depth, the studs are displaying, the leg is outstretched, in order that makes it critical foul play.”

On Sunday there was a really comparable incident, the place Bologna ahead Saelemaekers virtually caught Frosinone participant Zortea within the face with a excessive foot, however that was solely a yellow card.

Many noticed it as remarkably comparable, if not worse than the Krstovic problem, however Tommasi, the referee and the VAR all agreed it was not.

“It’s a yellow right here, as a result of there isn’t any depth, Saelemaekers goes as much as meet the ball, Zortea goes as much as meet it on the similar time, there’s solely a grazing.

“There are not any clear studs displaying, no depth, Zortea strikes the ball that can also be struck by Saelemaekers, so it isn’t critical foul play, it’s only imprudent behaviour.

“If he had struck the participant’s face with a stud or anything, then that will’ve been a pink card. As an alternative, Saelemaekers makes contact with the ball after which afterwards the surface of the boot grazes his head, not the studs.”

It was protected to say that the panel of former gamers within the DAZN studio, Massimo Ambrosini and Emanuele Giaccherini, completely didn’t agree with both of those choices.

They thought-about the Saelemaekers incident to be far worse, as he may see Zortea and nonetheless went in with a a lot larger boot, whereas Krstovic had no concept that Chukwueze was there.

It’s clear from the footage that Krstovic solely has his eyes on the ball and Chukwueze leaps in the direction of him, so isn’t within the striker’s eyeline.

In the end, Tommasi agreed that it’s fully right down to luck – if Krstovic had been 5cm extra a method, or Saelemaekers 5cm extra the opposite – the selections would’ve been reversed.

There was extra disagreement within the studio with former referee and DAZN pundit Luca Marelli sustaining Napoli deserved a penalty for the Alessio Zerbin problem on Cyril Ngonge, whereas Tommasi backed the choice of the VAR in waving play on.